OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmo-webcgm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Clarification about "WebCGM 2.0 Requirements"

Cleaned up text attached...
Title: clarification about WebCGM 2.0 Requirements

Clarification about "WebCGM 2.0 Requirements"

This clarification statement about WebCGM 2.0 requirements for international links was approved (2006-03-29) by the authors of that requirements document [1]:

Bottom line.  Internationalized links are supported in (draft) WebCGM 2.0, and were supported in (Rec) WebCGM 1.0 as well.  Unicode (UTF-8 or UTF-16) may occur in object id's, object names, and in link fragments.

Confusing requirements.  There has been confusion between the two paragraphs of section 2.5 in the WebCGM 2.0 Requirements Document [1].  It has two causes:  difference between the general requirements for (scalable) Web graphics formats on the one hand, and specific application constituency requirements on the other hand; and, some previous misunderstanding of the implications of IRI and internationalized links.

[1] http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/WebCGM_20_Requirements.html

Discussion.  The requirements in the two paragraphs of 2.5 come from two different sources.  Firstly (1st pgph of 2.5), there is a set of general requirements for a scalable vector graphics format, drafted by the W3C Graphics Activity some years ago [2].  In the case of Unicode support in the WebCGM components involved in object linking, these were adopted into WebCGM 1.0, and in fact are continued and further clarified in (draft) 2.0.  (And indeed are implemented already.)

[2] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/ScalableReq ,

Secondly (2nd pgph of 2.5), there are more recent requirements statements from the major WebCGM constituencies in aerospace & defense that are applying WebCGM (via Cascading Profiles).  There is no present need for internationalized links in these derived profiles, because of present application sector rules and conventions.  This paragraph expressed their concern that timely publication of WebCGM 2.0 should not be unduly delayed to include functionality perceived as unneeded, and failed to appreciate that significant internationalization of links (in satisfaction [2]) is already available in WebCGM 2.0.

Conclusion.  The internationalized link support currently in draft WebCGM 2.0 (which is a clarification of the 1.0 capabilities) meets the generalized requirements articulated for Web graphics formats [2], and provides a foundation from which specific application sectors can work.  For example, specific application sectors can add whatever further restrictions might be appropriate, via Cascading Profiles.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]